SURAT RAM Vs. NAND LAL
LAWS(HPH)-1997-5-15
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on May 30,1997

SURAT RAM AND ORS Appellant
VERSUS
NAND LAL AND ORS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

S.M. KARIM V. MST. BIBI SAKINA [REFERRED]
SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH V. MOST. PHOOL KUMARI AND ORS. [REFERRED]
SMT. SAMUNDRA DEVI V. CHAND SINGH AND ORS. [REFERRED]
IBRAMSA ROWTHER (MINOR) AND ORS. V. SK. MEERASA ROWTHER AND ORS. [REFERRED]
KALE AND ORS. V. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The second appeal is filed by a son of Lalla, the 1975 Defendant and Defendants No. 9 to 11 and 13 in Case No. 104/1 of 1975 on the file Sub-Judge If, Shimla. The suit was filed by the first Respondent in the appeal, who is now dead during the pendency of the appeal His legal representatives have come on record in this appeal. The parties will be referred to as Plaintiff on the one hand and the Defendants on the other for the sake of convenience, The Plaintiff is a purchaser from one Balak Ram, who was a son of Kesru. Kesru had three brOrs. by name Akloo, Motia and Devnu Akloo bad a son Mast Ram while Devnu had three sons, namely, Thonku, Daultia and Udhia The Appellants are claiming to be the descendents of Daultia. The case of the Plaintiff is that he purchased the suit property from Balak Ram, who was entitled to (sic) In the Properties which belonged to the family of his father and brOrs. and that on such purchase he has become a co-sharer along with the Defendants Hence, the Plaintiff has prayed in the suit for a decree for joint possession of the lands, set out in the plaint.
(2.)The suit was contested by the Defendants and mainly by the Appellants herein on three grounds. (1) Balak Ram had as early as in 1923 relinquished all his rights in the family properties in a family settlement in leu or which he was given a land in Anr. village; (2) the Defendants have prescribed title by adverse possession amounting to ouster as against Balak Ram and that Balak Ram was never in possession, and (3) the sale in favour of the Plaintiff is not a valid one as it was oral.
(3.)The trial Court upheld the defences raised by the Defendants and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Shimla, reversed the judgment of the trial Court and granted a decree as prayed for by the Plaintiff for joint possession. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, the Appellants have preferred this second appeal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.